The rise and fall of The SNP.

[XB52]

11 hours ago, weehammy said:

This is a thread concerning the SNP but also the implications of the recent Salmond trial in electoral terms. Perhaps you can point out where that event, or indeed its aftermath has been misreported by the mainstream media. Any conspiracy theories arising from the trial appear to centre on internal SNP political divisions rather than the media.
(And assertions about ‘Fake News’ are a well known aspect of Trump’s playbook)

Any comment about the latest poll which shows support for the snp growing?

[ri Alban]

57 minutes ago, XB52 said:

Any comment about the latest poll which shows support for the snp growing?

Personally, I don't really care atm. Let them go all deranged, the rest of the world will concentrate on other here and now important matters.

[jambos are go!]

10 hours ago, Hunky Dory said:

 

They announced 30 billion for the UK, not 30 billion for Scotland. Deary me.

 

340 Billion from the tories? Really?

https://www.ft.com/content/ab76001f-df0d-4f87-8ac5-07ec9f263946

 

Please read this and apologise to posters for your mistake!!!

[Space Mackerel]

The only thing that is falling is a lot of posters credibility on this site. 😁

[gjcc]

58 minutes ago, Hunky Dory said:

 

Hey, I apologize that you didn't pluck that figure out of your arse after all. But you are aware that the figure of 340 Billion is repayable loans? As in they have to be claimed, and then repaid:

 

The loans, made on “attractive” but unspecified terms, would allow firms to carry out fundamental day-to-day tasks such as paying wages and rent bills and buying stock.

 

In actual funding which you originally referenced, Scotland has been provided with 640million, not 30billion. The 30billion figure is for the UK.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-51835306

 

[jambos are go!]

1 hour ago, Hunky Dory said:

 

Hey, I apologize that you didn't pluck that figure out of your arse after all. But you are aware that the figure of 340 Billion is repayable loans? As in they have to be claimed, and then repaid:

 

The loans, made on “attractive” but unspecified terms, would allow firms to carry out fundamental day-to-day tasks such as paying wages and rent bills and buying stock.

 

In actual funding which you originally referenced, Scotland has been provided with 640million, not 30billion. The 30billion figure is for the UK.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-51835306

Dear oh dear. You are totally confusing the original Corona Virus measures outlined in the budget announced in the Budget and the massive rescue package announced by the Chancellor a week later.

 

If you could try and comprehend the article fully you will see that the Exchequer is promising to fund 80% of the wages of staff paid out by  businesses threatened by the crisis. These are not loans. Do you understand that these are not loans and account for the vast bulk of 300 Billion plus package( and Scotlands 30 billion plus share.

 

 

Another apology called for methinks

[jambos are go!]

1 hour ago, Hunky Dory said:

 

The first paragraph of the FT article that he linked, dated yesterday I should add, states:

Rishi Sunak has moved swiftly to try to counter the economic threat posed by the coronavirus pandemic by unleashing a £330bn package of bailout loans alongside an extraordinary offer of wage subsidies.

 

You've came into a conversation halfway through without understanding what was being discussed.

The bailout loans are interest free and government backed to provide funding to allow firms to retain an pay workers till they can reclaim 80% back from the UK Exchequer.  By any measure it it is a massive funding package to protect jobs and businesses which will be worth over 300 billion in the UK and over 30 billion in Scotlandl. Do you deny that and do you think Scotland should not take it ???

 

I have been participating in the independence debate on this board for I've 10 years from a Unionist perspective and I won't let you or any one else silence me. 

[JackLadd]

Oil at $20 a barrel, remember Salmond (innocent man btw, don't dare support those 'women' or else) set it at $120 a barrel for his 2014 all singing and dancing white paper (now loo paper if you can find any) budget. Can the snp adamant explain how an iScotland would have got through this year and next without a Greece bailout? Who is going to fund the debt when they can't borrow against future non existent North Sea revenue? 

[Roxy Hearts]

25 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

Oil at $20 a barrel, remember Salmond (innocent man btw, don't dare support those 'women' or else) set it at $120 a barrel for his 2014 all singing and dancing white paper (now loo paper if you can find any) budget. Can the snp adamant explain how an iScotland would have got through this year and next without a Greece bailout? Who is going to fund the debt when they can't borrow against future non existent North Sea revenue? 

What debt? If we have debt, we have assets. What's Scotland's income and not GERS! Always trying to put the boot in aren't you? What's other countries got that Scotland hasn't? 

[Space Mackerel]

31 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

Oil at $20 a barrel, remember Salmond (innocent man btw, don't dare support those 'women' or else) set it at $120 a barrel for his 2014 all singing and dancing white paper (now loo paper if you can find any) budget. Can the snp adamant explain how an iScotland would have got through this year and next without a Greece bailout? Who is going to fund the debt when they can't borrow against future non existent North Sea revenue? 

 

Jack the Ladd thinks Boris Johnson has a wee secret PO savings account tucked away. Bless.

[coconut doug]

1 hour ago, jambos are go! said:

The bailout loans are interest free and government backed to provide funding to allow firms to retain an pay workers till they can reclaim 80% back from the UK Exchequer.  By any measure it it is a massive funding package to protect jobs and businesses which will be worth over 300 billion in the UK and over 30 billion in Scotlandl. Do you deny that and do you think Scotland should not take it ???

 

I have been participating in the independence debate on this board for I've 10 years from a Unionist perspective and I won't let you or any one else silence me. 

 

Are you telling us that £30billion is available to Scotland to take or leave as Scotland sees fit?

 

Do you know what Scotland's contribution will be towards this £330 billion figure and how much Scotland will have to pay to service the debt that arises from it?

[jambos are go!]

24 minutes ago, Hunky Dory said:

 

It's a fund, providing loans on what was described as "attractive but unspecified terms". There is no mention of them being interest free. As I said earlier, the poster stated clearly that Scotland would receive 30 billion. No it won't, the money is available if people are willing to apply for it and then pay it back on "attractive but unspecified terms".

 

No one is silencing you, calm doon.

 

If you don't think it says interest free then read it again. That will be at at least your third attempt.

The rest of your post is semantic rubbish to divert from the fact the UK has given Scotland a 30 billion rescue plan and it does not fit in with your hatred of a beneficial Union. Better Together in action. 

[Justin Z]

1 minute ago, jambos are go! said:

If you don't think it says interest free then read it again. That will be at at least your third attempt.

The rest of your post is semantic rubbish to divert from the fact the UK has given Scotland a 30 billion rescue plan and it does not fit in with your hatred of a beneficial Union. Better Together in action. 

 

 

https://www.nbim.no/

 

 

Edited March 30, 2020 by Justin Z
Link didn't paste

[coconut doug]

39 minutes ago, jambos are go! said:

If you don't think it says interest free then read it again. That will be at at least your third attempt.

The rest of your post is semantic rubbish to divert from the fact the UK has given Scotland a 30 billion rescue plan and it does not fit in with your hatred of a beneficial Union. Better Together in action. 

 

There is nothing particularly beneficial about this. They are just printing money. Any country can do this and many are. 

You are presenting this as if it is a gift to Scotland, its not. Are we supposed to be grateful for £30billion or for the rescue plan?

I don't think you understand how this union works.

[Space Mackerel]

The only things falling are the BoE base rates to 0.1%, general populations savings, Fat Boris's reputation and the FTSE.

 

And certain posters credibility on this website.

[ri Alban]

The banks and government are gonnae own a lot of people's souls after this .

[ri Alban]

Going by Coronavirus numbers in the UK, Scotland should shut it's border, but hey, can't be done as Unionists signed Scotland over to WM.

[Jambo_Gaz]

2 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Going by Coronavirus numbers in the UK, Scotland should shut it's border, but hey, can't be done as Unionists signed Scotland over to WM.

You must really be hurting that you're not getting IndyRef2 this year.

 

Nicola's being outshined by the UK GOV and the reality has probably sunk in that you weren't going to get that Indyref2 in the first place. 🥳

[ri Alban]

28 minutes ago, Jambo_Gaz said:

You must really be hurting that you're not getting IndyRef2 this year.

 

Nicola's being outshined by the UK GOV and the reality has probably sunk in that you weren't going to get that Indyref2 in the first place. 🥳

I'm pretty calm about things. Just thought I'd see who was first of the Unionists to reply. 

 

As for the fight against Coronavirus, it's not a competition. Thou, the UK government are definitely outshining the Scots gov for catching and passing it on to each other, if that's what you mean.

 

All borders across the world should have been shut, that includes internal. 

 

 

[jambos are go!]

8 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

 

https://www.nbim.no/Divers

 

 

Diversion again

[Ray Gin]

42 minutes ago, Jambo_Gaz said:

 

Nicola's being outshined by the UK GOV . 🥳

 

[jambos are go!]

3 hours ago, ri Alban said:

The banks and government are gonnae own a lot of people's souls after this .

Do you think Scotland should reject the Deal and what is your alternative.

[jambos are go!]

7 hours ago, coconut doug said:

 

There is nothing particularly beneficial about this. They are just printing money. Any country can do this and many are. 

You are presenting this as if it is a gift to Scotland, its not. Are we supposed to be grateful for £30billion or for the rescue plan?

I don't think you understand how this union works.

Do you think Scotland should reject the Deal and what is your alternative.

 

6 hours ago, Hunky Dory said:

 

 Away and learn the difference between a rescue plan and a loan scheme.

Do you think Scotland should reject the Deal and what is your alternative?

[Jambo_Gaz]

44 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

I'm pretty calm about things. Just thought I'd see who was first of the Unionists to reply. 

 

As for the fight against Coronavirus, it's not a competition. Thou, the UK government are definitely outshining the Scots gov for catching and passing it on to each other, if that's what you mean.

 

All borders across the world should have been shut, that includes internal. 

 

 

There needs to be a physical border in the first place. 

[Ray Gin]

Outshined 

 

 

 

 

[frankblack]

5 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

Outshined 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't fault the tories for practicing what they preach and testing the herd mentality approach out themselves. 😜

[coconut doug]

40 minutes ago, jambos are go! said:

Do you think Scotland should reject the Deal and what is your alternative.

 

Do you think Scotland should reject the Deal and what is your alternative?

 

The HMG arrangements cannot really be described as a deal. It is a support package which most western countries are doing in a very similar way. 

 

As i understand it and please correct me if i am wrong but the support package is a uk initiative aimed at individual companies and "Scotland" will have no ability to accept or reject its terms.

 

Alternatives to this package are possible and may well be more appropriate than the one currently being offered by HMG. One example might be that support for wages has a ceiling of £2500 per month. This figure seems quite high to me and has IMO been devised to support London workers more. Higher earning Londoners will receive support when those doing the same job in other parts of the country do not. With wages being much higher on average in London there will be proportionately more support for London.

  The money is directed at companies rather than individuals which has left huge gaps in support for certain more vulnerable wage earners.  

[Pans Jambo]

10 hours ago, Roxy Hearts said:

What debt? If we have debt, we have assets. What's Scotland's income and not GERS! Always trying to put the boot in aren't you? What's other countries got that Scotland hasn't? 

I was listening to the chancellor when he announced his £330Bn package of assistance which he said was "15% of UK GDP".

 

So, 330/15 x 100 = 2200

 

Or £2.2Tn GDP UK

 

So Scotland being around 9% (ish) of the UK would average out as £198Billion pounds GDP from Scotland. (2200/100 x 9)

 

But wait, I thought we were only around £76Bn??????

 

How can this be???

[jambos are go!]

55 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

The HMG arrangements cannot really be described as a deal. It is a support package which most western countries are doing in a very similar way. 

 

As i understand it and please correct me if i am wrong but the support package is a uk initiative aimed at individual companies and "Scotland" will have no ability to accept or reject its terms.

 

Alternatives to this package are possible and may well be more appropriate than the one currently being offered by HMG. One example might be that support for wages has a ceiling of £2500 per month. This figure seems quite high to me and has IMO been devised to support London workers more. Higher earning Londoners will receive support when those doing the same job in other parts of the country do not. With wages being much higher on average in London there will be proportionately more support for London.

  The money is directed at companies rather than individuals which has left huge gaps in support for certain more vulnerable wage earners.  

Thanks but you are only suggesting tinkering. And yes you are right its a UK wide package. TINA applies methinks bit is still a huge contribution to UK and Scotland Business and population and should be welcomed for that.

Edited March 31, 2020 by jambos are go!
addition

[Justin Z]

6 hours ago, jambos are go! said:

Diversion again

 

Cute, but no. Had Scotland not been "Better Together" () for the last half century, it too could have an oil fund worth a trillion pounds at its peak to use to support its citizenry during this pandemic.

 

14 hours ago, jambos are go! said:

the UK has given Scotland a 30 billion rescue plan and it does not fit in with your hatred of a beneficial Union. Better Together in action. 

 

Instead, you're lathering yourself up over a loan of a few billion quid  printed into the economy and think that's laudable. Close, but the correct term is "laughable".

 

So no, it's not the least bit a diversion, it's a concrete, real-world case with all sorts of similarities to Scotland, located just over a small sea to the east. The idea that somehow Scotland has comparatively benefited in any way that is being demonstrated in the midst of this crisis, much less in a way that amounts to "Better Together in action" is an absolute nonsense; it could not be more of a polar opposite.

[coconut doug]

4 hours ago, jambos are go! said:

Thanks but you are only suggesting tinkering. And yes you are right its a UK wide package. TINA applies methinks bit is still a huge contribution to UK and Scotland Business and population and should be welcomed for that.

 

It's not a contribution, it is a money printing exercise directed at businesses and directed at London. realigning the direction of this package is not tinkering.

 

There are many alternatives but not many that suit the neocon agenda. Has the USA not targeted it's assistance on individuals rather than through businesses? I know Denmark has.

 

We could have had rationing of food and proper distribution of it too rather than rampant profiteering by some supermarkets and their suppliers.

[jambos are go!]

45 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Cute, but no. Had Scotland not been "Better Together" () for the last half century, it too could have an oil fund worth a trillion pounds at its peak to use to support its citizenry during this pandemic.

 

 

Instead, you're lathering yourself up over a loan of a few billion quid  printed into the economy and think that's laudable. Close, but the correct term is "laughable".

 

So no, it's not the least bit a diversion, it's a concrete, real-world case with all sorts of similarities to Scotland, located just over a small sea to the east. The idea that somehow Scotland has comparatively benefited in any way that is being demonstrated in the midst of this crisis, much less in a way that amounts to "Better Together in action" is an absolute nonsense; it could not be more of a polar opposite.

These are all opinions and guesses not facts. Whilst the UK benefited when oil revenues were high Scotland has benefited when the oil crashed and indeed before in the 250 years before the oil arrived. Better Together in action for the whole UK methinks.

 

I've not been" lathering about a few Billion quid" . Thirty Billion plus actually and counting. I was just pointing it out but of course incurred the wrath of the Tartan Taliban who refuse to believe anything coming from Westminster is true or good.

[Justin Z]

32 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

There are many alternatives but not many that suit the neocon agenda. Has the USA not targeted it's assistance on individuals rather than through businesses? I know Denmark has.

 

While people will be getting the equivalent of minimum wage for a month from the government, a trillion or so is going to businesses, because of course it is. In fact, someone on Twitter posted two forms: one for applying for millions or billions of dollars for your business, and one, the form used to apply for unemployment benefit. The latter was infinitely more complicated and invasive; the former basically asked "right who are you and where do we send the check?" and little else.

[jack D and coke]

1 minute ago, jambos are go! said:

These are all opinions and guesses not facts. Whilst the UK benefited when oil revenues were high Scotland has benefited when the oil crashed and indeed before in the 250 years before the oil arrived. Better Together in action for the whole UK methinks.

 

I've not been" lathering about a few Billion quid" . Thirty Billion plus actually and counting. I was just pointing it out but of course incurred the wrath of the Tartan Taliban who refuse to believe anything coming from Westminster is true or good.

[jambos are go!]

33 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

It's not a contribution, it is a money printing exercise directed at businesses and directed at London. realigning the direction of this package is not tinkering.

 

There are many alternatives but not many that suit the neocon agenda. Has the USA not targeted it's assistance on individuals rather than through businesses? I know Denmark has.

 

We could have had rationing of food and proper distribution of it too rather than rampant profiteering by some supermarkets and their suppliers.

Has guaranteeing 80% of wages not assisted individuals and will do so for months. Is that not better than a one off payment 0f $1250 from  the US Government? What would you rather have?

[Beast Boy]

58 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Cute, but no. Had Scotland not been "Better Together" () for the last half century, it too could have an oil fund worth a trillion pounds at its peak to use to support its citizenry during this pandemic.

 

 

Instead, you're lathering yourself up over a loan of a few billion quid  printed into the economy and think that's laudable. Close, but the correct term is "laughable".

 

So no, it's not the least bit a diversion, it's a concrete, real-world case with all sorts of similarities to Scotland, located just over a small sea to the east. The idea that somehow Scotland has comparatively benefited in any way that is being demonstrated in the midst of this crisis, much less in a way that amounts to "Better Together in action" is an absolute nonsense; it could not be more of a polar opposite.

 

Come back to base soon comrade, our Tartan Taliban needs you. 
 

 

[coconut doug]

5 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

While people will be getting the equivalent of minimum wage for a month from the government, a trillion or so is going to businesses, because of course it is. In fact, someone on Twitter posted two forms: one for applying for millions or billions of dollars for your business, and one, the form used to apply for unemployment benefit. The latter was infinitely more complicated and invasive; the former basically asked "right who are you and where do we send the check?" and little else.

 

No surprise but they are giving money directly to people rather than funneling it through businesses who may not pass it on or create delays for the needy.

[Justin Z]

2 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

No surprise but they are giving money directly to people rather than funneling it through businesses who may not pass it on or create delays for the needy.

 

One of my favourite reactions is people saying "$1,200? I can't live on $1,200!", not realising it's calculated based on a month's worth of minimum wage.

 

The same people who are against a living minimum wage.

[Beast Boy]

3 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

One of my favourite reactions is people saying "$1,200? I can't live on $1,200!", not realising it's calculated based on a month's worth of minimum wage.

 

The same people who are against a living minimum wage.

Indeed. Turns out I’m not alright after all, Jack.

[coconut doug]

9 minutes ago, jambos are go! said:

Has guaranteeing 80% of wages not assisted individuals and will do so for months. Is that not better than a one off payment 0f $1250 from  the US Government? What would you rather have?

 

As yet this guarantee of 80% of wages has not helped individuals. As i understand it payments are many weeks away. Who says the $1250 is one off payment? Is the UK gov scheme open ended?

 

Are you telling us that it makes sense to support individuals by giving money to their employers or former employers to pass on to the individuals. How many companies do you think will go bust in this crisis and what do you think will happen to the money allocated for workers and former workers in such an instance.

 

Which system do you think is more likely to catch the most needy?

 

Why would anybody choose this UK wide scheme to claim that Scotland would be Better Together? We dont as yet know what the full effects will be but we do know that London and the South East will do relatively well and that many people will see no benefit at all.

[coconut doug]

7 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

One of my favourite reactions is people saying "$1,200? I can't live on $1,200!", not realising it's calculated based on a month's worth of minimum wage.

 

The same people who are against a living minimum wage.

 

There's no going out and no holidays, that should help. £2,500 a month seems too generous to me. Most people do not earn anything like that.

 

Difficult decisions for any gov to make but the first instincts of ours were to support the economy rather than the people.  Carers,shop workers and delivery drivers are risking their lives to a greater degree than many and will as a result be off sick with minimal support. Salaried workers making little or no contribution to defeating the virus will still get near or full pay if they get ill. When this is all over ...

[Justin Z]

1 minute ago, coconut doug said:

 

There's no going out and no holidays, that should help. £2,500 a month seems too generous to me. Most people do not earn anything like that.

 

Yeah, I'm referring to people in the US who are vehemently against minimum wage increases and are now having to figure out a way to live on the federal minimum wage and having trouble squaring that with their new reality.

[jambos are go!]

17 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

As yet this guarantee of 80% of wages has not helped individuals. As i understand it payments are many weeks away. Who says the $1250 is one off payment? Is the UK gov scheme open ended?

 

Are you telling us that it makes sense to support individuals by giving money to their employers or former employers to pass on to the individuals. How many companies do you think will go bust in this crisis and what do you think will happen to the money allocated for workers and former workers in such an instance.

 

Which system do you think is more likely to catch the most needy?

 

Why would anybody choose this UK wide scheme to claim that Scotland would be Better Together? We dont as yet know what the full effects will be but we do know that London and the South East will do relatively well and that many people will see no benefit at all.

Refunds to Employers are many weeks away not payments to individuals. Employers will only have access to refunds if they can prove they paid out to Employees. They will have access to various forms of funding/loans to fund the 80  % wages and employees will still have their  jobs

[coconut doug]

50 minutes ago, jambos are go! said:

Refunds to Employers are many weeks away not payments to individuals. Employers will only have access to refunds if they can prove they paid out to Employees. They will have access to various forms of funding/loans to fund the 80  % wages and employees will still have their  jobs

 

We will wait and see the level of abuse. Not all employees will retain their jobs either. 

 

Are you still telling us that we should be grateful for having been given £30billion by the UK treasury or do you now understand that this money is QE and will have to be paid back from general taxation?

[coconut doug]

1 hour ago, Justin Z said:

 

Yeah, I'm referring to people in the US who are vehemently against minimum wage increases and are now having to figure out a way to live on the federal minimum wage and having trouble squaring that with their new reality.

 

I understand. There will be a different set of priorities after this i hope. We will want to change things and reduce inequality but will we manage to do that in any meaningful way in the US or UK? Only the terminally stupid can fail to see the contribution made to our society by so called low skilled workers after this and so i am hopeful that many lower paid will get more and a living wage will be more the norm rather than minimum wage. If other smaller, poorer countries can deliver better outcomes for their people then why not US/UK?

[frankblack]

13 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

I understand. There will be a different set of priorities after this i hope. We will want to change things and reduce inequality but will we manage to do that in any meaningful way in the US or UK? Only the terminally stupid can fail to see the contribution made to our society by so called low skilled workers after this and so i am hopeful that many lower paid will get more and a living wage will be more the norm rather than minimum wage. If other smaller, poorer countries can deliver better outcomes for their people then why not US/UK?

 

I think we would all like to see this, but a lot comes down to closing tax loopholes and making the big multi-nationals pay their fair share of tax at the countries they earn their income.

Edited March 31, 2020 by frankblack

[coconut doug]

54 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

I think we would all like to see this, but a lot comes down to closing tax loopholes and making the big multi-nationals pay their fair share of tax at the countries they earn their income.

 

I'm afraid the current government have no desire to do this. They are free market capitalists, funded and controlled by the richest, greediest and fundamentally amoral elements of our country who care little for the plight of the poor. 

 

A few tax evaders hanging from lampposts will close the loopholes but it wont change society. Radical surgery is required.

[jambos are go!]

1 hour ago, coconut doug said:

 

We will wait and see the level of abuse. Not all employees will retain their jobs either. 

 

Are you still telling us that we should be grateful for having been given £30billion by the UK treasury or do you now understand that this money is QE and will have to be paid back from general taxation?

You are right cheery soul are you not. 

 

I am well aware that there is no such thing as a free lunch. It will have to paid for. What is the alternative. Letting companies and household collapse? Something had to be done.

[Space Mackerel]

17 minutes ago, jambos are go! said:

You are right cheery soul are you not. 

 

I am well aware that there is no such thing as a free lunch. It will have to paid for. What is the alternative. Letting companies and household collapse? Something had to be done.

 

[jambos are go!]

32 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

I share the revulsion.

 

BTW we have come long way since the job retention scheme was a figment of my imagination!!